There are various types of cartilage, e.g., hyaline cartilage and fibrocartilage. Hyaline cartilage is found at the articular surfaces of bones, e.g., in the joints, and is responsible for providing the smooth gliding motion characteristic of moveable joints. Articular cartilage is firmly attached to the underlying bones and measures typically less than 5 mm in thickness in human joints, with considerable variation depending on the joint and the site within the joint.
Adult cartilage has a limited ability of repair; thus, damage to cartilage produced by disease, such as rheumatoid and/or osteoarthritis, or trauma can lead to serious physical deformity and debilitation. Furthermore, as human articular cartilage ages, its tensile properties change. The superficial zone of the knee articular cartilage exhibits an increase in tensile strength up to the third decade of life, after which it decreases markedly with age as detectable damage to type II collagen occurs at the articular surface. The deep zone cartilage also exhibits a progressive decrease in tensile strength with increasing age, although collagen content does not appear to decrease. These observations indicate that there are changes in mechanical and, hence, structural organization of cartilage with aging that, if sufficiently developed, can predispose cartilage to traumatic damage.
Once damage occurs, joint repair can be addressed through a number of approaches. One approach includes the use of matrices, tissue scaffolds or other carriers implanted with cells (e.g., chondrocytes, chondrocyte progenitors, stromal cells, mesenchymal stem cells, etc.). These solutions have been described as a potential treatment for cartilage and meniscal repair or replacement. See, also, International Publications WO 99/51719 to Fofonoff, published Oct. 14, 1999; WO01/91672 to Simon et al., published Dec. 6, 2001; and WO01/17463 to Mannsmann, published Mar. 15, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,980 B1 to Vibe-Hansen et al., issued Sep. 4, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,477 to Naughton issued Dec. 1, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 5,769,899 to Schwartz et al. issued Jun. 23, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 4,609,551 to Caplan et al. issued Sep. 2, 1986, U.S. Pat. No. 5,041,138 to Vacanti et al. issued Aug. 29, 1991, U.S. Pat. No. 5,197,985 to Caplan et al. issued Mar. 30, 1993, U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,914 to Caplan et al. issued Jul. 13, 1993, U.S. Pat. No. 6,328,765 to Hardwick et al. issued Dec. 11, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,281,195 to Rueger et al. issued Aug. 28, 2001, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,846,835 to Grande issued Jul. 11, 1989. However, clinical outcomes with biologic replacement materials such as allograft and autograft systems and tissue scaffolds have been uncertain since most of these materials do not achieve a morphologic arrangement or structure similar to or identical to that of normal, disease-free human tissue it is intended to replace. Moreover, the mechanical durability of these biologic replacement materials remains uncertain.
Usually, severe damage or loss of cartilage is treated by replacement of the joint with a prosthetic material, for example, silicone, e.g. for cosmetic repairs, or metal alloys. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,383,228 to Schmotzer, issued May 7, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,203,576 to Afriat et al., issued Mar. 20, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 6,126,690 to Ateshian, et al., issued Oct. 3, 2000. Implantation of these prosthetic devices is usually associated with loss of underlying tissue and bone without recovery of the full function allowed by the original cartilage and, with some devices, serious long-term complications associated with the loss of significant amount of tissue and bone can include infection, osteolysis and also loosening of the implant.
Further, joint arthroplasties are highly invasive and require surgical resection of the entire articular surface of one or more bones, or a majority thereof. With these procedures, the marrow space is often reamed to fit the stem of the prosthesis. The reaming results in a loss of the patient's bone stock. U.S. Pat. No. 5,593,450 to Scott et al. issued Jan. 14, 1997 discloses an oval domed shaped patella prosthesis. The prosthesis has a femoral component that includes two condyles as articulating surfaces. The two condyles meet to form a second trochlear groove and ride on a tibial component that articulates with respect to the femoral component. A patella component is provided to engage the trochlear groove. U.S. Pat. No. 6,090,144 to Letot et al. issued Jul. 18, 2000 discloses a knee prosthesis that includes a tibial component and a meniscal component that is adapted to be engaged with the tibial component through an asymmetrical engagement.
A variety of materials can be used in replacing a joint with a prosthetic, for example, silicone, e.g. for cosmetic repairs, or suitable metal alloys are appropriate. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,991 B1 to Running issued Sep. 3, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,387,131 B1 to Miehike et al. issued May 14, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,383,228 to Schmotzer issued May 7, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,344,059 B1 to Krakovits et al. issued Feb. 5, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,203,576 to Afriat et al. issued Mar. 20, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 6,126,690 to Ateshian et al. issued Oct. 3, 2000; U.S. Pat. No. 6,013,103 to Kaufman et al. issued Jan. 11, 2000. Implantation of these prosthetic devices is usually associated with loss of underlying tissue and bone without recovery of the full function allowed by the original cartilage and, with some devices, serious long-term complications associated with the loss of significant amounts of tissue and bone can cause loosening of the implant. One such complication is osteolysis. Once the prosthesis becomes loosened from the joint, regardless of the cause, the prosthesis will then need to be replaced. Since the patient's bone stock is limited, the number of possible replacement surgeries is also limited for joint arthroplasty.
As can be appreciated, joint arthroplasties are highly invasive and require surgical resection of the entire, or a majority of the, articular surface of one or more bones involved in the repair. Typically with these procedures, the marrow space is fairly extensively reamed in order to fit the stem of the prosthesis within the bone. Reaming results in a loss of the patient's bone stock and over time subsequent osteolysis will frequently lead to loosening of the prosthesis. Further, the area where the implant and the bone mate degrades over time requiring the prosthesis to eventually be replaced. Since the patient's bone stock is limited, the number of possible replacement surgeries is also limited for joint arthroplasty. In short, over the course of 15 to 20 years, and in some cases even shorter time periods, the patient can run out of therapeutic options ultimately resulting in a painful, nonfunctional joint.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,206,927 to Fell, et al., issued Mar. 27, 2001, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,558,421 to Fell, et al., issued May 6, 2003, disclose a surgically implantable knee prosthesis that does not require bone resection. This prosthesis is described as substantially elliptical in shape with one or more straight edges. Accordingly, these devices are not designed to substantially conform to the actual shape (contour) of the remaining cartilage in vivo and/or the underlying bone. Thus, integration of the implant can be extremely difficult due to differences in thickness and curvature between the patient's surrounding cartilage and/or the underlying subchondral bone and the prosthesis. U.S. Pat. No. 6,554,866 to Aicher, et al. issued Apr. 29, 2003 describes a mono-condylar knee joint prosthesis.
Interpositional knee devices that are not attached to both the tibia and femur have been described. For example, Platt et al. (1969) “Mould Arthroplasty of the Knee,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 51B(1):76-87, describes a hemi-arthroplasty with a convex undersurface that was not rigidly attached to the tibia. Devices that are attached to the bone have also been described. Two attachment designs are commonly used. The McKeever design is a cross-bar member, shaped like a “t” from a top perspective view, that extends from the bone mating surface of the device such that the “t” portion penetrates the bone surface while the surrounding surface from which the “t” extends abuts the bone surface. See McKeever, “Tibial Plateau Prosthesis,” Chapter 7, p. 86. An alternative attachment design is the Macintosh design, which replaces the “t” shaped fin for a series of multiple flat serrations or teeth. See Potter, “Arthroplasty of the Knee with Tibial Metallic Implants of the McKeever and Macintosh Design,” Surg. Clins. Of North Am. 49(4): 903-915 (1969).
U.S. Pat. No. 4,502,161 to Wall issued Mar. 5, 1985, describes a prosthetic meniscus constructed from materials such as silicone rubber or Teflon with reinforcing materials of stainless steel or nylon strands. U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,466 to Goodfellow et al. issued Mar. 25, 1978, describes a meniscal component made from plastic materials. Reconstruction of meniscal lesions has also been attempted with carbon-fiber-polyurethane-poly (L-lactide). Leeslag, et al., Biological and Biomechanical Performance of Biomaterials (Christel et al., eds.) Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 1986. pp. 347-352. Reconstruction of meniscal lesions is also possible with bioresorbable materials and tissue scaffolds.
However, currently available devices do not always provide ideal alignment with the articular surfaces and the resultant joint congruity. Poor alignment and poor joint congruity can, for example, lead to instability of the joint. Further, none of these solutions take into account the fact that roughly 80% of patients undergoing knee surgery have a healthy lateral compartment and only need to repair the medial condyle and the patella. An additional 10% only have damage to the lateral condyle. Thus, 90% of patients do not require the entire condylar surface repaired.
Thus, there remains a need for compositions for joint repair, including methods and compositions that facilitate the integration between the cartilage replacement system and the surrounding cartilage which takes into account the actual damage to be repaired. Further, there is a need for an implant or implant system that improves the anatomic result of the joint correction procedure by providing surfaces that more closely resemble the natural knee joint anatomy of a patient. Additionally, what is needed is an implant or implant system that provides an improved functional joint.